Arizona's Immigration Law

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
U.S. not cracking down on immigrants with expired visas



Not every illegal immigrant in the United States snuck across the border. A very large number, perhaps as many as 5.5 million, entered legally with visas and then never left.
But unlike the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants apprehended at the border every year, very few visa violators are ever caught.

The Border Patrol's Tucson sector, the busiest in the nation, logged 241,673 apprehensions last fiscal year. In comparison, federal agents in Arizona tracked down and arrested 27 people who had overstayed their visas.


Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/05/10/20100510illegal-immigrants-overstay.html#ixzz0ncilrFv6


http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/05/10/20100510illegal-immigrants-overstay.html
 

Icarus27k

Council Member
Apr 4, 2010
1,508
7
38
It's also my understanding that US Attorney General Eric Holder is checking to see if the AZ law violates federal civil rights law. It does seem strikingly similar to some of those Southern laws from decades ago that effectively levied a poll tax against African-Americans.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
116,351
13,972
113
Low Earth Orbit
Not every illegal immigrant in the United States snuck across the border. A very large number, perhaps as many as 5.5 million, entered legally with visas and then never left.
I can think of at least 7 Canadian nurses that are working and living in the US without visas.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
It's also my understanding that US Attorney General Eric Holder is checking to see if the AZ law violates federal civil rights law. It does seem strikingly similar to some of those Southern laws from decades ago that effectively levied a poll tax against African-Americans.
Care to cite those comparisons using exact sections of the Bill?
 

YukonJack

Time Out
Dec 26, 2008
7,026
73
48
Winnipeg
"I can think of at least 7 Canadian nurses that are working and living in the US without visas."

Seven falls somewhat short of 12 million.

Also, I venture to guess that all of the seven nurses speak English. None of the seven nurses go around waving Canadian flags and screeching about equality and police brutality. More than likely none of the seven nurses imported illegal drugs into the U.S. And even if they have no work visas, they at least entered America LEGALLY.

Those are only my guesses. I may be wrong. Up to petros to set me straight.
 
Last edited:

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States

Arizona Si, Obama No!

May 14, 2010 by Chip Wood


Bloodshed! Violence! Riots! Threats!
That’s been the reaction from the racists of La Raza, and a number of other self-proclaimed do-gooders, who claim to be outraged that the good citizens of Arizona have the unmitigated gall to do what their Federal government should be doing for them—protecting them from an alien invasion.
I have a lot to say about this whole contrived crisis, as you might imagine. And I hope you do, too. That’s what the “comments” section at the end of this column is for.
But before I do, I have one introductory item I must mention. And that is to congratulate the law-enforcement officials in New York City and environs who were so quick to identify and arrest Faisal Shahzad, the would-be terrorist who tried to blow up part of Times Square and several innocent civilians.
As many of you know, I’m not a huge fan of our government’s response to the Islamofascists who want to kill us. I sometimes suspect we’d be better off without the Department of Homeland Security, their minions in the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the unconstitutional abuses of the USA PATRIOT Act and much more. But I have to say the people charged with protecting us seem to have done a great job this time. Thanks, everyone. (And thanks, too, that the only suicidal jihadists our enemies can attract seem to be as dumb as rocks. That certainly helps.)
And now, back to the current crisis.
Do you remember back in 1986, when Ronald Reagan proposed and Congress approved the Immigration Reform and Control Act? That legislation was supposed to solve the immigration crisis once and for all. It granted amnesty to 2.7 million “undocumented workers” then living in the United States. We were told this would set them on the path to becoming law-abiding, English-speaking, tax-paying citizens.
We were also assured that the flood of illegal immigration into this country would be stopped. Congress subsequently approved legislation to build a massive wall along the U.S.-Mexican border and to hire thousands of additional agents for the Border Patrol.
None of this happened. Not a single thing we were promised 24 years ago came true.
Instead, the flood of illegals into this country became a tsunami. Where we once had 4 million to 5 million illegal immigrants, we’re now told the correct number is somewhere between 12 million and 20 million. The number is several times higher than a pessimist’s worst prediction two decades ago. Even more shocking is that responsible authorities can’t tell us the right number to the nearest million—or even the nearest 5 million.
Whatever the correct number, it’s enough to overwhelm our schools, our hospitals, our prisons and our law enforcement officials wherever illegal aliens settle in any significant numbers.
This is not immigration. It’s an invasion. And we need to deal with it as such.
This is not just my opinion. It’s what our Constitution says. Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution clearly states, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and … shall protect each of them against invasion….”
Please note that the Constitution does not specify a military invasion or the use of arms. No, it simply says “invasion.” And if that is not what we are facing, what is it?
Shame on President Obama for refusing to do his constitutional duty to protect us from this unlawful invasion. Shame on Congress for refusing to act to defend us.
And congratulations to the people of Arizona who acted wisely and responsibly (and, may I point out, legally and constitutionally) to do what our Federal government has refused to do—that is, to protect their citizens and enforce the law.
It is amazing to me, and disgusting, too, to see how many liberal do-gooders out there are actively encouraging lawbreakers to break more laws. Sadly, I even put Obama in this category.
Let’s not let them get away with it.
Let’s demand that Congress pass legislation that will stop the invasion and demand the President enforce it. Will that mean hiring 12,000 new border guards, as President Bush once promised to do? Fine. Let’s do it. Hire them, train them and give them all the latest high-tech goodies (and old tech stuff, too, such as the vehicles, floodlights and weapons) to do the job.
Will that mean building a wall along the border with Mexico, stretching from California to Texas? Then appropriate the money and let’s finish building the darned thing.
In addition, we must tell the government of Mexico that we require its cooperation in halting the tidal wave of illegal immigration pouring out of their country—a tidal wave they have been actively encouraging. That must stop. This is not a request; this is a condition for our continuing friendship.
We must also warn the people of Mexico (and their friends, family and allies in our country) that the U.S. is going to enforce its laws. Make it clear that we will no longer look the other way or compromise on enforcing our rules and regulations. There will be no way across the border except legally. Period.
And most important of all: We must demand that our government do whatever needs to be done to secure our borders. No more excuses. No more delays. The time to act is now.
There is much more that could and should be said on this subject. As we move to resolve this crisis, let’s make sure that illegal aliens who knowingly and deliberately broke our laws aren’t given a better deal than all those applicants for entry who have played by the rules.
Let’s make it our choice who gets to come here—when, from where, how many and for how long. If we need more temporary workers, fine. Let’s decide how many can come, how long they can stay and what they must do (and not do) while they’re here.
And let’s also insist that we get to decide what to do about the millions of illegals who are already here. I’ll agree that if they’ve been law-abiding, tax-paying contributors to our society since they arrived, that deserves some consideration. But just because someone got away with a crime for years doesn’t mean they’ve earned a free pass to citizenship.
All of these issues, and more, we can debate and decide later on. For now, there is only one thing that must be done. We must secure our borders.
If you agree, then there are two things you can do. First, forward this column to several other friends and family members. Urge them to read it, to act on it and to pass it on to others.
Two, contact the three people in Washington who have been elected to represent you—your two Senators and one Representative. It takes only a moment to call their office, or send them an email, and tell them, “Before doing anything to fix the immigration mess, I demand that you secure our borders. If you won’t help stop the invasion of our country, I will elect someone who will.”
If you’re not sure how to contact your congressmen (or don’t know who they are), there’s an easy-to-use website called Contacting the Congress that will give you this information in moments. When you get to the site simply enter your address and the contact information for your representatives in Congress will appear.
It isn’t often you get an opportunity to help decide the kind of country your children and your children’s children will live in. This is one of them. So please do it now, while you’re thinking about it. And while we still have time.
Meanwhile, if you live in Arizona, please accept my congratulations on what your government is trying to do. And my condolences on the way you’re being treated by others, from the president of the U.S. to the racist rabble-rousers of La Raza.
If you don’t live in the Sunshine State but know someone who does, please tell them they are not alone in this battle. The vast majority of American people share their concerns. Urge them to stand fast while we rally others behind them.
Until next time, keep some powder dry.
http://www.personalliberty.com/liberty/arizona-si-obama-no/
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States

REGION: Three USD professors say Arizona law is constitutional

Controversial immigration law violates civil rights, critics say
By EDWARD SIFUENTES | Posted: Thursday, May 13, 2010 7:44 pm
*This story has been modified since its original posting
Arizona's controversial new immigration law probably would withstand legal challenges on constitutional grounds, according to a panel of three University of San Diego law professors.
However, the professors said the law could create problems, such as racial profiling, if it is not implemented properly.
The professors spoke Thursday during a panel discussion on UC San Diego's campus in La Jolla hosted by the Institute of the Americas, an organization that promotes cooperation between the U.S. and Latin America.
Arizona's law, Senate Bill 1070, requires police officers to check a person's immigration status if they have a "reasonable suspicion" the person is in the country illegally. It makes it a state crime to be in the country without legal documentation; it already is a federal crime.
Critics say the law, which takes effect later this year, could lead to racial profiling of Latinos and other ethnic minorities. Some Latino and civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, say they plan to challenge the law in court.
Those groups say the Arizona law also violates the U.S. Constitution by interfering with federal immigration power and authority.
Professor Lawrence Alexander, who teaches constitutional law at USD, said that argument would fail because the Arizona law does not conflict with federal immigration law. The state law is only seeking to enforce the federal law, he said.
"I don't see anything in this law that is going to fail a challenge on the grounds of federal supremacy," Alexander said.
Alexander was a panelist along with professors Donald Dripps, a scholar on criminal law, and Maimon Schwarzschild, who specializes in constitutional law. Former U.S. Ambassador Jeffrey Davidow, who is president of the Institute of the Americas, served as moderator.
Supporters said the law was needed due to the federal government's failure to secure the border.
In response, several cities across the country have passed resolutions or urged boycotts to protest the law, including Oakland and San Diego. On Tuesday, San Francisco city supervisors approved a resolution that urges a boycott of Arizona-based businesses and asks sports leagues not to hold championship games or tournaments there.
About 50 people attended the panel discussion at UCSD, including students, attorneys and immigration rights advocates. About a dozen people who spoke during a question-and-answer session criticized the law.
"The problem is the application of the law," said San Diego immigration attorney Lilia Velasquez. "On the ground, (the) Border Patrol or the police officers in Arizona will arrest people based on their race and maybe solely on their race."
Under the law, police officers who detain a person, such as in a traffic stop, are required to question a person about his or her immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion" that the person is in the United States illegally.
The panelists agreed that defining what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" could be problematic. But that alone does not render the law unconstitutional, Alexander said.
"Could a police officer overstep the bounds and do something that the Constitution does not permit? Of course," he said. "Police officers can do that now. They can do that without the law, but the law itself does not authorize anything that is unconstitutional."
The Arizona law, which said that race or ethnicity cannot be the only factor prompting a police officer to ask a person's immigration status, was later amended to say that race could not be considered at all in questioning a person's status.
Dripps said the U.S. Supreme Court has said that a person's apparent Mexican ancestry can be a factor in stopping someone for an immigration stop by immigration agents. The question, he said, is whether that authority would also apply to police officers asking someone about his or her immigration status.
Schwarzschild also raised questions about whether the law could be discriminatory.
"I think the answer there is: It could. In the way that it is enforced," Schwarzschild said. "But it certainly doesn't, on its face."
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_9631a761-1a36-597b-8467-2173655b4465.html?print=1


 
Last edited:

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
All right, immigration proposals under discussion. Let me add mine to the mix. I want to call this proposal the Limbaugh Laws. Here they are. First, if you immigrate to the United States of America, you must speak the native language. You have to be a professional or an investor. We are not going to take unskilled workers. You will not be allowed. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools, no special ballots for elections, no government business will be conducted in your native language. Foreigners will not have the right to vote, I don't care how long they are here, nor will they ever be allowed to hold political office. According to the Limbaugh Laws, if you're in our country, you cannot be a burden to taxpayers. You are not entitled, ever, to welfare, to food stamps, or other government goodies. You can come if you invest here, but it must be an amount equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage. If you don't know have that amount of money, you can't come and invest. You have to stay home. If you do come and you want to buy land, okay, but we're going to restrict your options. You will not be allowed to buy waterfront property in the United States. That will be reserved for citizens naturally born in this country.
In fact, as a foreigner, you must relinquish individual rights to property. These are the Limbaugh Laws. Another thing. You don't have the right to protest when you come here. You're allowed no demonstrations, you cannot wave a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies, or you get sent home. You're a foreigner. You shut your mouth or you get out, and if you come here illegally, you go straight to jail and we're going to hunt you down 'til we find you.

I can imagine many of you think that the Limbaugh Laws are pretty harsh. I imagine today some of you probably are going, "Yeah! Yeah!" Well, let me tell you this, folks. Every one of the laws I just mentioned are actual laws of Mexico, today. I just read you Mexican immigration law. That's how the Mexican government handles immigrants to their country. Yet Mexicans and others come here illegally, they protest in our streets, they get on our welfare program, and we have members of the United States Senate, both parties, doing handstands and back flips, going through every contortion possible to allow it to continue so that it doesn't make these people mad, resulting in votes against these linguini-spined populations.


Rush Proposal... The Limbaugh Laws
 
  • Like
Reactions: EagleSmack

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
WELCOME TO FASCIZONA Steyn on America Saturday, 08 May 2010

As I write, I have my papers on me — and not just because I’m in Arizona. I’m an immigrant, and it is a condition of my admission to this great land that I carry documentary proof of my residency status with me at all times and be prepared to produce it to law-enforcement officials, whether on a business trip to Tucson or taking a 20-minute stroll in the woods back at my pad in New Hampshire.

Who would impose such an outrageous Nazi fascist discriminatory law?


Er, well, that would be Franklin Roosevelt.


But don’t let the fine print of the New Deal prevent you from going into full-scale meltdown. “Boycott Arizona-stan!” urges MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, surely a trifle Islamophobically. What has some blameless Central Asian basket case done to deserve being compared to a hellhole like Phoenix?
Boycott Arizona Iced Tea, jests Travis Nichols of Chicago. It is “the drink of fascists.” Just as regular tea is the drink of racists, according to Newsweek’s in-depth and apparently non-satirical poll analysis of anti-Obama protests. At San Francisco’s City Hall, where bottled water is banned as the drink of climate denialists, Mayor Gavin Newsom is boycotting for real: All official visits to Arizona have been canceled indefinitely. You couldn’t get sanctions like these imposed at the U.N. Security Council, but then, unlike Arizona, Iran is not a universally reviled pariah.


Will a full-scale economic embargo devastate the Copper State? Who knows? It’s not clear to me what San Francisco imports from Arizona. Chaps? But, at any rate, like the bottled-water ban, it sends a strong signal that this kind of hate will not be tolerated.


The same day that Mayor Newsom took his bold stand, I saw a phalanx of police officers doing the full Robocop — black body armor, helmets, and visors — as they marched down the street. Goosestepping? No, it’s actually quite hard to goosestep in those steel-reinforced kneepads. So just regular marching. Naturally, I assumed they were Arizona state troopers performing a routine traffic stop. In fact, they were the police department of Quincy, Ill., facing down a group of genial tea-party grandmas in sun hats and American-flag T-shirts. They were acting at the behest of President Obama’s Secret Service, who rightly recognized a polite knot of citizens singing “God Bless America” as a clear and present danger to the republic.


If I were a member of the Quincy PD, I’d wear a full-face visor, too, because I wouldn’t be able to look myself in the mirror. It’s a tough job making yourself a paramilitary laughingstock.


And yet the coastal frothers denouncing Arizona as the Third Reich or, at best, apartheid South Africa seem entirely relaxed about the ludicrous and embarrassing sight of peaceful protesters being menaced by camp stormtroopers from either a dinner-theater space-opera or uniforms night at Mayor Newsom’s reelection campaign.
SteynOnline - WELCOME TO FASCIZONA
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Extra, I've been saying this from the beginning. Much ado about nothing. But that won't stop the meatheads of the world from rambling on nonsensically, without any knowledge of the FACTS at all.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
What is the point of so much copy and paste? Does anybody really read it? I don't. There really ought to be some forum policy about endless copy and paste.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Does anybody really read it? I don't.
That's made completely obviously by the fact that you know very little about so many things.

There really ought to be some forum policy about endless copy and paste.
There should be rules about deviating the top...err, there is. Stop trying to deviat the topic because everyone of your posts in this thread just got lambasted.